TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC

That is a very very well written response. And it probably reflects something close to reality. I'm betting that, internally, Tesla was more concerned about performance, and that in coming up with their marketing specs they fairly simply added up the motor HPs without a lot of consideration for the battery.

The crux of the article is that Tesla publishes the combined shaft HP numbers the motors are capable of, even though there are factors (pack SOC, temp, traction, front/rear torque-split, etc...) that may at times prevent that combined total from being reached.

However, most HP figures for vehicles are the peak ratings for what the system as a whole is capable of under ideal conditions. Even if an ICE engine itself is capable of 400HP, you can't publish that if the fuel pump is only capable of delivering 350HP worth of fuel rate.

IOW: You need to be able to demonstrate full HP under ideal manufacturer-specified conditions.

Does the P85D ever deliver a measurable 691HP? My understanding was no...

The crux of the article is that Tesla publishes the combined shaft HP numbers the motors are capable of, even though there are factors (pack SOC, temp, traction, front/rear torque-split, etc...) that may at times prevent that combined total from being reached.

However, most HP figures for vehicles are the peak ratings for what the system as a whole is capable of under ideal conditions. Even if an ICE engine itself is capable of 400HP, you can't publish that if the fuel pump is only capable of delivering 350HP worth of fuel rate.

IOW: You need to be able to demonstrate full HP under ideal manufacturer-specified conditions.

Does the P85D ever deliver a measurable 691HP? My understanding was no...

Click to expand...

As I understand it, there are specific SAE standards for reporting HP in ICEVs but there none for EVs yet. It's more than just the engine peak HP. I believe it also includes specific accessories, and assumes some drive train losses. Because EVs are so different, those conditions simply aren't defined at this point. And if the goal is to make EV and ICEV numbers comparable for comparison purposes, then that gets even muddier. I suspect that, once standards are set, that Tesla will have to revise their numbers. But that's a debate for another day.

Anyway... that's as far as I'm going to wade into this debate because it's become somewhat of a religious war. My car does what I expected to and I'm happy!

No horse in this race, but that came across as side-stepping the real issues owners are bringing up (some of which are mentioned in the comments)

Click to expand...

Tesla more or less confirmed, in their blog, that the battery won't deliver enough power to provide the full combined motor HP. The big question is... is it relevant? Tesla is saying no, it's not in any practical way. There will doubtless be a lot of opinions!

Bottom line, there are no standards yet for dual motor EV horsepower measurements, Tesla used one way of measuring that doesn't reflect real world power output.

Coming from the computer world where hard drive manufacturers publish really high IOPS specs, and real world testing under various methodologies gives five different numbers depending on how it is tested, this isn't surprising.

But I do agree that it would have been nice if Tesla had used a HP number that was closer to what you could get in the real world.

Bottom line, there are no standards yet for dual motor EV horsepower measurements, Tesla used one way of measuring that doesn't reflect real world power output.

Coming from the computer world where hard drive manufacturers publish really high IOPS specs, and real world testing under various methodologies gives five different numbers depending on how it is tested, this isn't surprising.

But I do agree that it would have been nice if Tesla had used a HP number that was closer to what you could get in the real world.

Click to expand...

Totally agree with this. Using a more real world number would have been better but as you noted, using an idealized set of testing isn't new to Tesla. They addressed how they got this number and this will have to do. No free hardware upgrades coming it looks like.

No horse in this race, but that came across as side-stepping the real issues owners are bringing up (some of which are mentioned in the comments)

Click to expand...

Agree, It very rarely even mentioned the P85D going so far as to list HP measurements of the other models but then skipping the P85D. I also got a rather condescending tone from the post. The whole HP isn't relevant for power thing. Its the same unit in a different system.

However, most HP figures for vehicles are the peak ratings for what the system as a whole is capable of under ideal conditions. Even if an ICE engine itself is capable of 400HP, you can't publish that if the fuel pump is only capable of delivering 350HP worth of fuel rate.

I should note that Fisker also used a similar rating as Tesla (only considered the motors in its 402 hp rating, when in reality it was making under 300 hp considering the whole system). Ford also lists separate motor power numbers for their Energi cars (although they also list battery power now). There is no published SAE power standard yet for EVs.

Agree, It very rarely even mentioned the P85D going so far as to list HP measurements of the other models but then skipping the P85D. I also got a rather condescending tone from the post. The whole HP isn't relevant for power thing. Its the same unit in a different system.

Click to expand...

I should once again remind everyone of the history of the "motor power" numbers. Starting in October 2014 (with the launch of the dual motor numbers), Tesla published only motor power numbers for all models. It was not until April 2015 (a month after that "691 hp" complaint thread) did they started adding back system power numbers for the other models (although they left it blank for the P85D, but I think the reason why they did was obvious given the thread).

This debate reminds me of the issues companies had measuring the output of amplifiers. Most amps are measured in watts. Manufactures competed by publishing increased watt ratings in response to demand for bigger amps. Stereo amp manufactures added the output of there two channels together to get total watts in many cases ignoring the fact their power supplies could not drive both channels at the specified wattage. It got worse with home theater systems 5 or more channels. Even as power supplies got bigger, many did not respond well to changes in power demands typical with music reproduction. In the end it was the ability of the system to reproduce music that counted not an amps specifications that could be manipulated.

I think the same is true with the MS. It is how it drives and how quickly it accelerates that counts not the HP ratings or the motors. I have followed this forum for quite awhile and from what I read most people who drive or ride in a Tesla love their cars. I have a P90D being delivered next week and can't wait even though I may never know how many HP it really has or what the total power the electrical system can supply.

This debate reminds me of the issues companies had measuring the output of amplifiers. Most amps are measured in watts. Manufactures competed by publishing increased watt ratings in response to demand for bigger amps. Stereo amp manufactures added the output of there two channels together to get total watts in many cases ignoring the fact their power supplies could not drive both channels at the specified wattage. It got worse with home theater systems 5 or more channels. Even as power supplies got bigger, many did not respond well to changes in power demands typical with music reproduction. In the end it was the ability of the system to reproduce music that counted not an amps specifications that could be manipulated.

I think the same is true with the MS. It is how it drives and how quickly it accelerates that counts not the HP ratings or the motors. I have followed this forum for quite awhile and from what I read most people who drive or ride in a Tesla love their cars. I have a P90D being delivered next week and can't wait even though I may never know how many HP it really has or what the total power the electrical system can supply.

This debate reminds me of the issues companies had measuring the output of amplifiers. Most amps are measured in watts. Manufactures competed by publishing increased watt ratings in response to demand for bigger amps. Stereo amp manufactures added the output of there two channels together to get total watts in many cases ignoring the fact their power supplies could not drive both channels at the specified wattage. It got worse with home theater systems 5 or more channels. Even as power supplies got bigger, many did not respond well to changes in power demands typical with music reproduction. In the end it was the ability of the system to reproduce music that counted not an amps specifications that could be manipulated.

I think the same is true with the MS. It is how it drives and how quickly it accelerates that counts not the HP ratings or the motors. I have followed this forum for quite awhile and from what I read most people who drive or ride in a Tesla love their cars. I have a P90D being delivered next week and can't wait even though I may never know how many HP it really has or what the total power the electrical system can supply.

Click to expand...

This is a great analogy, and one that I think Tesla could really help explain how the horsepower number is similar to the wattage of a given speaker while the torque, acceleration and driving feel is the equivalent of what actually has real mening which in your example would be different aspects of the music being outputted: for example volume/power, dynamic range, responsiveness, corectness in amplifying the original signal (CD, Tape whatever) and in the end the total subjective feel of the totality of the music.

we have pushed the combined motor horsepower higher and higher, the amount of times where the battery chemical horsepower is lower than the combined motor horsepower has increased.

Click to expand...

To me this begs a follow-up question:

brianman throwing his voice said:

With the new (Ludicrous generation) fuses, you've improved the transfer of power from the batteries to the motors significantly.
When do you expect to be able to deliver a battery that can meet or exceed the demands of the P85D/P90D motors? By 2025? What other weak points in the system -- besides the battery -- are obstacles for achieving 691 / 700+ hp for 10 second bursts (at 30mph)?

Click to expand...

Aside from what this means to current customers, I'm quite curious from a technical perspective.

Meta

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.